After months of debate and compromise and with some reservations, an information-access ordinance was adopted Wednesday by the Salt Lake County Commission.
Commissioners voted 2-1 in favor of the county's version of the state Government Access and Management Act - called a GRAMA - but agreed to further discuss and possibly amend later one contested provision.The unresolved issue concerns a section of the ordinance that permits county officials to notify a person when someone asks to see records involving that person.
For example, if a news reporter, a political opponent, an undercover investigator, a credit agency or just a curious citizen asked to see records involving a county commissioner, the commissioner could be tipped off.
Jeff Hunt, attorney for the Utah Headliners Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, said the notification provision would thwart public access to public records.
"Our continuing objection to the proposed language is that reporters and members of the public should be able to exercise their statutory right to inspect public records without fear that such inspection will be reported to the county," Hunt said.
Deputy County Attorney Karl Hendrickson said the notification provision is intended to protect the privacy interests of private citizens, not county officials.
"Ordinary citizens have their lives spread across our records to an extraordinary degree, and we've tried to provide some checks for those privacy concerns," Hendrickson said. "Clearly, government officials and employees have a much lower threshold of privacy."
Commission Chairman Jim Bradley argued that notifying the subject of an inquiry serves rather than hinders openness in government. Why should that subject be denied access to information about someone checking into his or her records? he asked. Why should a reporter or anyone else be entitled to secrecy? "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," Bradley said.
Hunt said the comparison is invalid, and he questioned what he considers to be ambiguities in the county GRAMA.
"How would the agency director determine when to notify the subject of a public record that a request for access had been made? What categories of public records would be subject to the notification scheme? What if the subject objected to release of the record?" Hunt asked. "Throughout the debate . . . I have heard no answer to these questions."
Commissioner Randy Horiuchi expressed reservations as well, agreeing with Hunt that the provision may be so unclear that it could result in obstructing access to information that is clearly public. Notification may be warranted in some instances after public records are released, but not before, he said.
Hunt suggested that the provision be amended to permit notification only when someone requests information from a "non-public record." He said the change would accommodate the county's privacy and liability concerns "without chilling access to public records."
Conceding that the issue deserves more discussion, Bradley directed that the ordinance be reconsidered at future meetings. In the meantime, however, the new law takes effect with the notification provision intact as of July 1. Horiuchi voted no.
Another controversial provision in the ordinance - the "embarrassment" clause - was removed before the law was passed Wednesday. An earlier draft would have allowed the county to restrict access to records "which deal with matters of a delicate nature which could engender shame, humiliation or embarrassment in the subject of the record."
As enacted, the ordinance contains basically the same language as the state GRAMA, which restricts access to records when their release would be "a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
Following are some of the key provisions of the 21-page county GRAMA:
- All records will be considered public unless specifically classified otherwise.
- An agency shall respond to written requests for records within 10 days, or within five days if the requesting party can demonstrate that an expedited response benefits the public at large rather than an individual.
- Access to records may be denied for specified administrative reasons. - A person denied access to records may appeal through a specified procedure.
*****
(Additional information)
Grand County tightens access
While Salt Lake County removed language closing off records that may cause "embarrassment," it has spawned such a law in Grand County.
Meeting in Moab earlier this week, the Grand County Commission approved as law language originally drafted by the Salt Lake County attorney's office that would close records that "could engender shame, humiliation or embarrassment in the subject of the record."
The Grand County ordinance also allows the county to require a requester to obtain notarized written permission from the subject of rec-ords. Such language also was removed from the Salt Lake County ordinance.
The Society of Professionals Journalists has argued that the "embarrassment" language creates a large loophole in the law that isn't consistent with the state Government Access and Management Act, which goes into effect on July 1. The media group also has argued that notification requirements, including the 30-day written-permission provision, are unwarranted.
Grand County officials could not be reached for comment Thursday morning.